DC Handgun Carry Ban Overturned!

[maintenanceguy 510]

I realize this is old news since the decision came out over an hour ago.  I was waiting for someone else to post this but I don't' see it.

 

The ban on carry in DC has been overturned and DC has been ordered by the judge not to enforce two provisions of DC law.

 

One makes it illegal to carry a handgun outside the home, the other only lets you register (own) a handgun for the purpose of self protection inside the home.

 

The decision also specifically applies to non-residents of DC - that's us.   The order not to enforce is in place until DC comes up with a constitutional licensing program.  I'm sure there will be scrambling on Monday morning to write something. 

 

If I'm reading that right, open and concealed carry are legal in DC starting an hour ago for residents and non residents without a permit.  Check with your lawyer and don't take my word for it.

 

you can read the decision on Palmer v. DC here:

 

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2009cv1482-51

[HBecwithFn7 296]

I realize this is old news since the decision came out over an hour ago.  I was waiting for someone else to post this but I don't' see it.

 

The ban on carry in DC has been overturned and DC has been ordered by the judge not to enforce two provisions of DC law.

 

One makes it illegal to carry a handgun outside the home, the other only lets you register (own) a handgun for the purpose of self protection inside the home.

 

The decision also specifically applies to non-residents of DC - that's us.   The order not to enforce is in place until DC comes up with a constitutional licensing program.  I'm sure there will be scrambling on Monday morning to write something. 

 

If I'm reading that right, open and concealed carry are legal in DC starting an hour ago for residents and non residents without a permit.  Check with your lawyer and don't take my word for it.

 

you can read the decision on Palmer v. DC here:

 

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2009cv1482-51

 

Excellent!   I wonder if this also has effect on the "ammunition" law that includes "spent brass," etc.... If not, then there is still work to be done. That and getting them to honor FOPA, etc.

[Midwest 28]

Maintenanceguy, Thanks for posting this, this is significant.

 

 

Also now reported here

 

"BREAKING: DC’s Ban on Right To Carry Overturned
By Dan Zimmerman on July 26, 2014"

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/07/daniel-zimmerman/breaking-dcs-ban-right-carry-overturned/

 

 

 

"Gun rights advocate extraordinaire Alan Gura reports that the DC District Court just overturned the District of Columbia’s ban on the right to carry firearms."

 

.

[HBecwithFn7 296]

Maintenanceguy, Thanks for posting this, this is significant.

 

 

Also now reported here

 

"BREAKING: DC’s Ban on Right To Carry Overturned

By Dan Zimmerman on July 26, 2014"

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/07/daniel-zimmerman/breaking-dcs-ban-right-carry-overturned/

 

 

 

I have been reading some of the comments in the above article.   One question.... Who is this "Shannon" person to whom they refer???

[maintenanceguy 510]

Shannon Watts:  Pretend stay at home mom who started the grass roots organization Moms Demand Action to stop right to carry.   Turns out she's really the ex-PR director of Monsanto recruited by Bloomberg to be the face of this "grass roots" organization that he's bankrolled to the tune of $50 million.

[JohnnyB 4,322]

Anyone have any thoughts as to this ruling helping our cause here in the PRNJ??? The way I see it,

D.C. had a total ban on any carry outside the home whereas NJ says "we allow concealed carry, just meet our

nearly impossible standards to qualify for a permit". 

 

NJ is a no carry state masquerading as a may issue state!

 

Quote the ruling: In their complaint, Plaintiffs assert two claims for relief. In their first claim, Plaintiffs
allege that, "y requiring a permit to carry a handgun in public, yet refusing to issue such
permits and refusing to allow the possession of any handgun that would be carried in public,
Defendants maintain a complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public by almost all
individuals."

 

NJ requires a permit to carry, yet refuses to issue such permits in 99.9% of cases.

[galapoola 102]

Anyone have any thoughts as to this ruling helping our cause here in the PRNJ??? The way I see it,D.C. had a total ban on any carry outside the home whereas NJ says "we allow concealed carry, just meet ournearly impossible standards to qualify for a permit".  NJ is a no carry state masquerading as a may issue state! Quote the ruling: In their complaint, Plaintiffs assert two claims for relief. In their first claim, Plaintiffs

allege that, "y requiring a permit to carry a handgun in public, yet refusing to issue such

permits and refusing to allow the possession of any handgun that would be carried in public,

Defendants maintain a complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public by almost all

individuals." NJ requires a permit to carry, yet refuses to issue such permits in 99.9% of cases.

What this means to NJ is what Heller v DC eventually meant to Chicago, if it makes it to SCOTUS, carry will be defined once and for all. Then we sue again based on this win and get the carry part of the 2nd incorporated to the states

[Midwest 28]

In addition to New Jersey there is also Maryland, Hawaii, New York City and the other counties in NY State and California that are "may not issue" as well as Rhode Island which 1/2 the state is "may not issue". 

 

Just remember what I said in another post here on NJgunforums about how the NJ Supreme Court ruled in the three challenges to the 1966 FID law in "Burton vs. Sills" . I'll repeat an excerpt here.

 

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/70719-another-victim-of-senseless-nj-laws/page-3#entry894564

 

"....the courts relied on "United States v. Cruikshank " which the court ruled that second amendment did NOT apply to the States and that 1876 ruling was consistent with the 1833 ruling "Barron v. Baltimore" that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. At the time (1967-1968) the NJ Supreme Court was bound by those rulings.

 

And from what I am reading, that after "McDonald v. Chicago" the NJ Supreme Court is bound by that and not "United States v. Cruikshank " . What am I talking about? The rulings in the "Burton vs. Sills" in 1967-1968 need to be revisited or thrown out because "United States v. Cruikshank " and "Barron v. Baltimore" are no longer precedent in the law. "McDonald v. Chicago" is now precedent.

 

Ergo the Sills 1966 FID law needs to thrown out in order to be consistent with "McDonald v. Chicago" because the prior ruling were based on finds that no longer take precedent. "

 

Not only can the 1966 FID law be challenged and possibly have (1967-1968 rulings on)  "Burton vs Sills" overturned. But the other firearms laws as well as they were probably based on the  flawed "United States v. Cruikshank "  ruling at the time of their inception. And, as I mentioned in that other  post. This could also help that lady from PA .

 

Good Luck Guys

.

[JohnnyB 4,322]

What this means to NJ is what Heller v DC eventually meant to Chicago, if it makes it to SCOTUS, carry will be defined once and for all. Then we sue again based on this win and get the carry part of the 2nd incorporated to the states

 

In the ruling it states,   "Ninth Circuit in Peruta concluded that "the

carrying of an operable handgun outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense, though  subject to traditional restrictions, constitutes 'bear[ing] Arms' within the meaning of the Second Amendment."

  

PRNJ does not consider Self Defense a valid reason for permit issue yet the Federal Courts have concluded self defense outside the home is a Constitutional right!  How can NJ defy that ruling?  Why do we have to wait for a Supreme Court ruling when the Circuit Courts can give us our rights back??

[glockamole 0]

I read this and decided Im going to carry right now... well in my house haha. Getting ready for a few day trip to delaware. Had to make sure my holsters were in order so when I leave nj tomorrow I can be an American for a few days.

[ryan_j 0]

It might have some good impact for us. However this is a district ruling. It will probably be appealed to the federal circuit. I don't know if DC will get a stay or not while it's being appealed. This may ultimately reach SCOTUS, or a similar case will. 

 

Hopefully they don't get a stay and DC constitutional carry remains intact. I have a road trip to VA and WV coming up and I'd love to stop off in DC. Just gotta remember to bring the small gun with the legal (less than 10 round) magazine.

[maintenanceguy 510]

This is DC's district court.  The ruling does not apply to NJ, although the more federal courts that rule this way, the better.

 

The 3rd circuit court that serves NJ has already ruled that NJ's laws are constitutional. 

 

One key difference in the cases is that NJ testified that it did issue permits to almost everyone who applied and was therefore shall issue - of course nobody ever applies.  While DC never disputed the fact that they never issue permits.

[Respect2A 0]

Yup NJ politicians and lawyers don't give a shit and will still piss all over those rulings. One day they are finally going to get sued and lose, until then they will do everything in their power to restrict us as much as possible.

[mipafox 438]

 

It might have some good impact for us. However this is a district ruling. It will probably be appealed to the federal circuit. I don't know if DC will get a stay or not while it's being appealed. This may ultimately reach SCOTUS, or a similar case will. 

 

Hopefully they don't get a stay and DC constitutional carry remains intact. I have a road trip to VA and WV coming up and I'd love to stop off in DC. Just gotta remember to bring the small gun with the legal (less than 10 round) magazine.

Does this ruling absolve you of the licensing requirements to possess firearms and ammunition (or ammunition components) in DC? I don't know, sincere question.

[ryan_j 0]

 

Does this ruling absolve you of the licensing requirements to possess firearms and ammunition (or ammunition components) in DC? I don't know, sincere question.

It would appear so.

 

"Furthermore, this injunction prohibits the District from completely banning the carrying of handguns in public for self-defense by otherwise qualified non-residents based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District."

 

 

[mipafox 438]

 

It would appear so.

 

"Furthermore, this injunction prohibits the District from completely banning the carrying of handguns in public for self-defense by otherwise qualified non-residents based solely on the fact that they are not residents of the District."

 

 

I don't think that quote in and of itself means you don't need a license to possess a firearm or ammunition in DC, which is a separate issue from carrying a handgun in public.

[msokad 3]

Hopefully this means we are one step closer for NJ residents to get carry permits.

[JC_68Westy 1,024]

I wonder how many people in NJ have applied for a Permit to Carry a Handgun.  I know there was talk about a mass application, but then I heard nothing.  It is hard to prove a de facto ban if there aren't people being denied  a permit.

[JohnnyB 4,322]

I wonder how many people in NJ have applied for a Permit to Carry a Handgun.  I know there was talk about a mass application, but then I heard nothing.  It is hard to prove a de facto ban if there aren't people being denied  a permit.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but NJ code probably says that self defense alone is not enough of a reason to get a CC permit. If so, this is where we

can get them since these recent rulings state that self defense outside the home is the core of the Second Amendment and to prevent lawful

citizens from such protection is unconstitutional!

[Pythagoras 2]

I wonder how many people in NJ have applied for a Permit to Carry a Handgun.  I know there was talk about a mass application, but then I heard nothing.  It is hard to prove a de facto ban if there aren't people being denied  a permit.

This. Without a boatload of denials to prove our point, our argument is pure hearsay. No judge is going to care that NJ has a reputation of de facto no-issue: we need to have the irrefutable data to prove it.

 

 

ETA: Props to mipa for predicting "even DC will get carry before NJ." (You know this I-told-you-so is coming, right? )

[SJG 253]

This case is unlikely to have any impact in "may issue" jurisdictions due to the very narrow issues presented. Even if a stay of it is issued, pending DC legislative activity, the court did not rule on "may issue". It will probably be appealed to the the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and combined with the footnoted other DC District Court Case. Unless and until,  DC sets up a may issue or good cause requirement that is squarely ruled upon by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals that makes it to SCOTUS, any holding from that Circuit that conflicts with the Third, will have no impact here.

[maintenanceguy 510]

...Just remember what I said in another post here on NJgunforums about how the NJ Supreme Court ruled in the three challenges to the 1966 FID law in "Burton vs. Sills" . I'll repeat an excerpt here....

 

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/70719-another-victim-of-senseless-nj-laws/page-3#entry894564

 

Which is probably why the NJ Supreme Court decided ultimately not to hear Pantano.  They know that under the new precedent, they would have to rule that NJ's laws are unconstitutional.

 

 

Does this ruling absolve you of the licensing requirements to possess firearms and ammunition (or ammunition components) in DC? I don't know, sincere question.

 

I don't know but the ruling says:

 

"In light of Heller, McDonald, and their progeny, there is no longer any basis on which this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia's total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny."

 

It seems that if you are allowed to carry a ready to use handgun, you must be allowed to carry one with ammunition in it.

 

I wonder how many people in NJ have applied for a Permit to Carry a Handgun.  I know there was talk about a mass application, but then I heard nothing.  It is hard to prove a de facto ban if there aren't people being denied  a permit.

 

Almost none.  During the Drake case, the NJ AG had statistics that the state approves 95% (I'm probably off by a percent or two) of applicants.  That means that if there are 600 permits issued each year (also from the AG's statistics) thee are only 30 applicants that are denied.

[Pythagoras 2]

Correct me if I'm wrong but NJ code probably says that self defense alone is not enough of a reason to get a CC permit. If so, this is where we

can get them since these recent rulings state that self defense outside the home is the core of the Second Amendment and to prevent lawful

citizens from such protection is unconstitutional!

Let's hope so. Remember, NJ and the Third Circuit don't care what happens in DC. This would only matter if

 

a) some NJ case makes it to SCOTUS, and

b) the Supremes decide they want to resolve the circuit split, and

c) the Supremes agree with us.

 

Let's cross our fingers.

[Newtonian 453]

Anyone have any thoughts as to this ruling helping our cause here in the PRNJ??? The way I see it,

D.C. had a total ban on any carry outside the home whereas NJ says "we allow concealed carry, just meet our

nearly impossible standards to qualify for a permit". 

 

NJ is a no carry state masquerading as a may issue state!

 

Quote the ruling: In their complaint, Plaintiffs assert two claims for relief. In their first claim, Plaintiffs

allege that, "y requiring a permit to carry a handgun in public, yet refusing to issue such

permits and refusing to allow the possession of any handgun that would be carried in public,

Defendants maintain a complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public by almost all

individuals."

 

NJ requires a permit to carry, yet refuses to issue such permits in 99.9% of cases.

This is huge. It's nearly exactly what NJ citizens face. 

 

DC is a fantastic test case. Lots of minorities, lots of violent crime, pretty much all officials are democrats. According to the antis, legal carry exacerbates gun crime. Let us see what they say when crime remains flat or falls.

 

But don't get too excited kids. 3-4 years hence, when the stats show no increase in D.C. crime, Gov. Sweeney will stand by Bloomberg, Moms for Action, and the Newtown Magical Misery Tour. "NJ is different."

[maintenanceguy 510]

 

In the ruling it states,   "Ninth Circuit in Peruta concluded that "the

carrying of an operable handgun outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense, though  subject to traditional restrictions, constitutes 'bear[ing] Arms' within the meaning of the Second Amendment."

  

PRNJ does not consider Self Defense a valid reason for permit issue yet the Federal Courts have concluded self defense outside the home is a Constitutional right!  How can NJ defy that ruling?  Why do we have to wait for a Supreme Court ruling when the Circuit Courts can give us our rights back??

 

The 3rd circuit court that serves NJ ruled last summer that NJ's permiting scheme (It called it that) is perfectly legal.

[Newtonian 453]

The 3rd circuit court that serves NJ ruled last summer that NJ's permiting scheme (It called it that) is perfectly legal.

Perfectly legal according to the legal fictions that ignore, that are based on ignoring fundamental U.S. law that states "...shall not be infringed." What could be simpler?

[ryan_j 0]

This case is unlikely to have any impact in "may issue" jurisdictions due to the very narrow issues presented. Even if a stay of it is issued, pending DC legislative activity, the court did not rule on "may issue". It will probably be appealed to the the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and combined with the footnoted other DC District Court Case. Unless and until,  DC sets up a may issue or good cause requirement that is squarely ruled upon by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals that makes it to SCOTUS, any holding from that Circuit that conflicts with the Third, will have no impact here.

 

I have to disagree with you here. While may-issue was not being argued, they extensively cited Peruta and the original Heller decision. Specifically, the decision pointed out that the 2nd amendment right to bear arms was the right to "carry for a particular purpose  - confrontation."

 

Sure, they can have may-issue if they want. But if SCOTUS rules in line with Peruta, they will have to accept "self defense" as a good cause (or justifiable need, or good and substantial cause) for obtaining a permit to carry. It will be may-issue like Connecticut, which is very much a may-issue jurisdiction, but they operate like a shall-issue one in practice. 

[NYMetsFan86 9]

It certainly seems like a good step, but even if we were to benefit from this ruling wouldn't it take a reeeaaaalllly long time?

[Respect2A 0]

This isn't the judgment that will bring true ccw to NJ.

[ryan_j 0]

I'm now reminded of why I cut down my posting here. Too many negative nellies who seem to enjoy NJ defeat and have zero idea of how the system works.

 

FWIW, Chief Lanier has instructed the DC police to stop enforcing the carry ban. Strike one.

 

She also instructed DC police to recognize ALL out of state carry permits. Strike two.

 

You think they'll appeal? Maybe, maybe not. Sheriff Gore in San Diego pretty much said, "I'm done" when Peruta came down. 

 

NJ will get its day. One day, and one day soon. Very, very soon. There are a lot of things going on behind the scenes and some in plain sight. Either you help, or get out of the way.